Section 139(9) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.263

Section 139(9) falls under section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 263 (Return of income) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 263 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 139(9) is CIT v. Merchant (280 CTR 381), cited in 68 of the 234 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 139(9)

CIT v. Merchant
280 CTR 381 · 2015 · High Court
68
citing judgments

The scope of Section 43B and Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act are distinct, meaning they cannot be read together to determine an assessee's entitlement to a deduction for belatedly paid employee contributions.

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. vs. DCIT 313 ITR 263; Ramond Limited v. DCIT
315 ITR 72 · 2009 · High Court
47
citing judgments

Income is not taxable as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) if the services are not 'made available' to the recipient, according to the interpretation of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAA). If a treaty lacks an FTS clause, income is taxable as business income only if a permanent establishment exists in India and the income is attributable to it.

DCIT v. PanAmSat International Systems Inc.
9 SOT 100 · 2006 · ITAT
35
citing judgments

Payment for transponder facility does not constitute royalty if it is not for a secret process and does not make technical knowledge available under a DTAA.

ITO v. Seth Bros. (SC)
74 ITR 836 · 1969 · Reported
24
citing judgments

Evidence collected during an illegal search can still be used against the assessee. An assessment made based on such evidence is valid.

Invensys Systems Inc. v. DI.T (AAR)
317 ITR 438 · 2009 · Reported
23
citing judgments

Payments for services are not taxable in India as Fees for Included Services (FIS) under a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) if they do not make technical knowledge, know-how, or experience available to the Indian recipient.

CLSA Ltd. v. ITO(IT)
305 ITR 208 · 2008 · Reported
21
citing judgments

Payments received for referring international clients to another entity do not constitute 'fees for technical services' if they do not involve rendering technical, managerial, or consultancy services. Such fees may be construed as commission income.

DDIT (Exemptions) v. Petroleum Sports Promotion Board
362 ITR 235 · 2014 · High Court
14
citing judgments

Gross receipts cannot be taxed as income, and expenses must be allowed accordingly, even if exemption under Section 11 is denied. Income should be assessed under 'Income from Other Sources' with deductions under Section 57.

Calcutta Management Association v. ITO
42 ITD 62 · 1992 · ITAT
14
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer is not justified in rejecting a claim for exemption under section 11 of the Income-tax Act. The ITAT has also held that an opportunity of being heard need not be afforded under section 139(9) in certain circumstances.

S. Kumar Enterprises (Synfabs) Ltd. v. JCIT
170 TTJ 37 · 2015 · ITAT
12
citing judgments

Assessments under section 143(3) and 144 have distinct and different consequences. An assessment under section 143(3) involves reviewing the income tax return and requesting evidence of income and expenditures.

CIT v. Mahalaxmi Rice Factory
163 Taxmann 565 · 2007 · High Court
11
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 139(9)

P D Memorial Religious and Educational Association, Bahadurgarh vs. DCIT (Exemption) Circle-2, Chandigarh

In the result appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 932/CHANDI/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Sept 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Addl/Jt. Cit(A) Also. Therefore The Delay Is Condoned Subject To Imposition Of Cost On The Assessee. The Assessee Shall Pay Rs. 20,0000/- (Rs. Twenty Thousands)As Cost To The Pm National Relief Fund & Furnish Evidence Of The Same To The Registry & The Assessing Officer.

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, Pr. CIT, DR(Virtual Mode)
Section 1Section 11Section 12ASection 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)

P D Memorial Religious and Educational Association, Bahadurgarh vs. DCIT (Exemption) Circle-2, Chandigarh

In the result appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 932/CHANDI/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Sept 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Addl/Jt. Cit(A) Also. Therefore The Delay Is Condoned Subject To Imposition Of Cost On The Assessee. The Assessee Shall Pay Rs. 20,0000/- (Rs. Twenty Thousands)As Cost To The Pm National Relief Fund & Furnish Evidence Of The Same To The Registry & The Assessing Officer.

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, Pr. CIT, DR(Virtual Mode)
Section 1Section 11Section 12ASection 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)

Pintu Babulal Purohit, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(2)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 136/BANG/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Sept 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 144Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

Ravi Rajgarhia, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 33(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1284/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Sept 2026AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Ravi Rajgarhia Ito, Wad 33(1) 5/1, Russel Street, Kolkata- 10, Middleton Row, Kolkata- Vs. 700071, West Bengal 700071, West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaipr9802P Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Praveen Das Chowdhury, Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.07.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.09.2026

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Das Chowdhury
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151A

Harvinder Singh, Karnal vs. ITO Ward 1 Karnal, Karnal

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3219/DEL/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalharvinder Singh, Income Tax Officer, H. No.118, New Bahadur Chand Ward -1, Karnal. Colony, Hansi Road, Vs. Karnal, Haryana-132001. Pan-Amspk2381A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Girish Aneja, Ca Ms. Beenu, Sr. Dr Department By Date Of Hearing 29/07/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 29/07/2026

Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 250

Lodha Grandeur Co Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 22(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2700/MUM/2026[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: AAAAL5308B
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234ASection 249(3)Section 80P(2)(d)

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(OSD), Circle -1(1), Raipur vs. Shivalik Power and Steel Private Limited, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 496/RPR/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jul 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.496/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd), Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rituparna Namdeo. CIT-DR
Section 139(9)Section 144C(1)Section 292B

Nariman Bhavan Premises Co- Op Society Ltd., Mumbai vs. Ward 25(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2658/MUM/2026[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prabhash Shankarnariman Bhavan Premises V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward – Co-Op Society Limited बनाम 25(3)(1), Kautilya Bhavan, 227, Nariman Bhavan, Backbay Bkc, Bandra East, Mumbai Reclamation, Nariman Point, – 400 051, Maharashtra Mumbai – 400 021, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaajn0320J Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Asif Karmali & Shri Jayesh Dhabaria,ARsFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhri,(Sr. DR)
Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

In. Genius Solutions- Fzco, Dubai vs. Circle (Intl Tax), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is therefore, allowed

ITA 1304/JPR/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Guptain. Genius Solutions- Vs. Circle Fzco (Intl Tax) Kalani & Co Llp, Jaipur Chartered Accountants, 5Th Floor, Milestone Building, Gandhinagar Turn, Tonk Road, Jaipur "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No:Aagci 8736 E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Sh. P.C. Parwal, Ca (Thr. V.C.) Respondent By : Mrs. Aarti Rawat, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing 23.06.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30.06.2026 O R D E R The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Income Tax Department, Cit(A), Delhi 42 (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”), Under Section 154 R.W.S. 154 R.W.S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. P.C. Parwal, CA (Thr. V.C.)For Respondent: Mrs. Aarti Rawat, Addl. CIT
Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 195

Sai Shanti Shikhan Samiti, Bhilai vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bhilai

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 679/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jun 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos:678 & 679/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 10B(8)Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

Sai Shanti Shikhan Samiti, Bhilai vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bhilai

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 678/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jun 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos:678 & 679/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 10B(8)Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

Ankur Foundation, Mumbai vs. ITO (Exemp) Ward 2(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed to the extent of condonation of delay in filing of Form 10B

ITA 280/MUM/2026[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Anil ThakrarFor Respondent: Assessee by
Section 11Section 119Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)

Prama Metta Orphanes Trust, Gaya vs. ITO Exemption Ward-1, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 137/PAT/2026[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna08 Jun 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Arijit Mitra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mingma Sherpa, Sr. DR
Section 139(9)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

Prama Metta Orphanes Trust, Gaya vs. ITO Exemption Ward-1, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 136/PAT/2026[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna08 Jun 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Arijit Mitra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mingma Sherpa, Sr. DR
Section 139(9)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

Prama Metta Orphanes Trust, Gaya vs. ITO Exemption Ward-1, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 135/PAT/2026[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna08 Jun 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Arijit Mitra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mingma Sherpa, Sr. DR
Section 139(9)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

Uma Organics, Vadodara vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 366/AHD/2026[2023-24]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad29 May 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2023-24

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, A.RFor Respondent: Shri VeerabadramVislavath, Sr. D.R
Section 139(9)Section 145Section 145ASection 154Section 250Section 44A

Naved Investment and Trading Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 970/MUM/2026[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Smt.Beena Pillai & Shri Prabhash Shankarnaved Investment & V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Trading Company Private बनाम Income Tax, Circle – 3(2)(1), Limited Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi 66-67, Nariman Bhavan, Karve Marg, New Marine Nariman Point, Mumbai – Lines, Mumbai – 400 020, 400 021, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacn1810C Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Chaitnya Joshi & Shri Vinayak Bhat, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhari, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 246Section 246(1)Section 246A(1)(a)

Chetna, Sector-C vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, Ram Tirath Marg

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 355/LKW/2026[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 May 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2019-20 Chetna, Vs Assistant Director Of Income Tax Aliganj, Lucknow Pan: Aaatc1696A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Akshay Agarwal, Adv Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.05.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.05.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Addl /Jcit-3 (Appeals) Ahmedabad Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 16.01.2026, Wherein The Ld. First Appellate Authority Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Cpc Under Section 154 Of The Act For The A.Y. 2019-20, Passed On 14.02.2024. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Without Considering The Facts Of The Case. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Wrongly Rejected The Exemption U/S 12A Saying That There Was No Valid & Timely Submitted Form 10B & Form No 10 On Record, Even The Form 10B (Audit Report) Was Submitted On 31/10/2019 Within The Prescribed Time & Form 10B (Audit Report) Available On Income Tax Portal. 3. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) Has Also Not Given Any Finding About The Calculation Of Tax On Income Over Expenditure As Aop In Case Of Rejection Of Exemption U/S 12A. 4. That The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Against The Law & Principle Of Natural Justice. 1 A.Y. 2019-20 Chetna

For Appellant: Sh. Akshay Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Kumar, DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

Unnat Krishi Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit, Hatpiplia vs. Income Tax Officer-1, Dewas

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in these terms

ITA 755/IND/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore08 May 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2018-19 Unnat Krishi Sahkari Sanstha Ito-1, Maryadit, Gram Hatpipliya, Dewas बनाम/ Tehsil- Hatpipliya, Vs. Dewas (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaaau3884H Assessee By Shri Venus Rawka, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29.04.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 08.05.2026

Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 144Section 250Section 44ASection 80ASection 80P

Mayna Mondal, Durgapur vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(3), Durgapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1716/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 May 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri George Mathanmayna Mondal Vs Ito, Ward-1(3), Durgapur 3/8, Joydeb Avenue, B Zone, Durgapur, Burdwan, W.B - 713205. Pan No. : Axjpm3694G (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhary, Advocate रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Kallol Mistry, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/05/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/05/2026

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kallol Mistry, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)